Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement/ Implied License. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia decided that musician/producer Redwin Wilchcombe gave an implied, non-exclusive license for Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz to use Wilchcombe's song and sound recording of 'Tha Weedman' on the multi-million-selling Kings of Crunk album. Wilchcombe v. Teevee Toons Inc., 1:04CV1775MHS. The district court explained that an implied, nonexclusive license can exist where '(1) a person requests the creation of a work (requestor); (2) the creator makes that particular work and delivers it to the requestor; and (3) the creator intends that the requestor copy and distribute the work.' The court then noted: 'The parties' conduct indicates an implied license. Lil Jon requested the creation of the Work twice: first, by telling plaintiff that he needed a song about a weedman for the Album, and second, by requesting the Work after he had left Audio Vision [recording studio in Miami, FL] ' Plaintiff testified that when he finished with the Work, he let [the studio manager] know that he was finished and that Lil Jon 'can get it whenever he is ready ' so they can mix it and put it on the album.' ' Upon delivering the Work to Lil Jon, plaintiff never discussed with Taylor or any defendant that using the Work would constitute copyright infringement.' ' Copyright Infringement/ Insurance Coverage. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a copyright-infringement suit over the alleged unauthorized transmission of sound recordings via an Internet service was covered by the defendant's insurance policy in effect at the time the claimed infringements began. National Casualty Co. v. Launch Media Inc., 04-16989. The appeals court explained in its unpublished opinion: '[Insurance claimant] Launch Media's argument hinges on the transmittal of songs for the first time during the [subsequent] policy ', but this is not a new loss because the alleged copyright infringement involves the same subject matter (webcasting without a license) and the same class of persons (those complaining in [the underlying infringement suit]) that triggered coverage and that National defended under the [prior liability] policy until those policy limits were exhausted. ' This interpretation does not render coverage under [the subsequent policy] illusory, as Launch Media maintains, because infringement claims not stemming from the [underlying infringement] action, as well other forms of media liability such as claims arising out of libel, slander, and defamation, remain potentially covered by the policy.' ' Film Exhibition/Antitrust Claims. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a suit by the owners of independent movie theaters in Manhattan that blamed the film-licensing practices of major exhibitor Regal Entertainment Group for the plaintiffs' drop in profits. Reading International Inc. v. Oaktree Capital Management LLC, 03 Civ. 1895(PAC). The district court dismissed the federal and state antitrust claims. According to the court, 'At most, Plaintiffs' evidence suggests that Regal bullied its distributors and, at times, attempted to pressure them into more favorable deals. There is absolutely no evidence, however, that its tactics worked.' ' Satellite-Music Recorders/Infringe-ment Defense Denied. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), which provides copyright-infringement immunity for manufacturing and selling a digital audio recording device (DARD), provided no ground for dismissal of an infringement suit by major record labels over XM Satellite's MP3 player. Atlantic Recording Corp. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc., 06 Civ. 3733(DAB). The district court explained: 'Aside from receiving XM radio broadcasts, [the defendant's] XM + MP3 player allows a user to store MP3 files, which he or she already owned or acquired from outside sources. ' Additionally, XM + MP3 players permit subscribers to record, retain and library individually disaggregated and indexed audio files from XM broadcast performances; the Record Companies refer to this final feature as a 'digital download delivery service' and this feature is the subject of this litigation.' The court concluded 'because of the unique circumstances of XM being both a broadcaster and a DARD distributor and its access to the copyrighted music results from its license to broadcast only, that the alleged conduct of XM in making that music available for consumers to record well beyond the time when broadcast, in violation of its broadcast license, is the basis of the Complaint, and being a distributor of a DARD is not.'